Southern California public radio show AirTalk hosted a debate last week (click here to listen) on the merits of proposed legislation to increase transparency in the cosmetics and personal care industry - The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010.
For many years now, advocates for public safety and health have questioned the level of regulation and testing that commonly used personal products like lotions, cosmetics, hair dyes, nail polish and more are subject to.
Environmental Working Group has created an ingredient information database for mass market brands, called the 'Skin Deep' Cosmetic Safety Database, which is aimed at arming the public with details about what's in our most commonly used personal care products. The hope of legislators introducing the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 is to lift the veil (some would say close the loophole) that allows beauty industry manufacturers to omit trace or inactive ingredients from labeling. In addition, the legislation would require personal care products to be tested for contamination, and to verify accuracy of ingredients disclosure and efficacy claims.
Last week's on-air discussion of the cosmetics regulation issue involved Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and author. Her beauty guide, Not Just A Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry, was recommended on the Today Show's web site as one of six 'green reads' along with heavy environmental hitters like The Lazy Environmentalist and Cradle to Cradle.
Malkan responded to callers' questions about ingredients like sodium laureth/lauryl sulfate, and their curiosity about whether more expensive products are actually more effective. In her opinion, many of high-end brands' effectiveness claims are just so much smoke and mirrors - in reality the benefits across price points are pretty much stable. Malkan suggested choosing products with simple formulations to limit exposure to unknowns and 'unlisteds' like mercury, lead, coal tar and the myriad of chemicals in the ingredient generically listed as 'fragrance.'
Malkan's sparring partner on the subject of HR 5786 was John E. Bailey, Ph.D., who is currently, after a more than decade-long stint at the EPA, Chief Scientist for the Personal Care Products Council. PCPC is lobbying hard against the proposed cosmetics legislation and arguing that its passage would be damaging to small business and to innovation in the industry.
Take a listen to what Malkan and Bailey had to say, and see what you think ... When state and local representatives head back to Washington this fall, we'll be watching for developments on this potentially eye-opening legislation.
(Photo: House Of Sims/Flickr)
Recent Comments